It’s good! But, maybe it an’t right?
I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them. This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).
Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian¦a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction¦It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.
Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.
Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.
Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.
Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
-
DesignerGal
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:20 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
coberst wrote: It’s good! But, maybe it an’t right?
I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them. This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).
Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian¦a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction¦It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.
Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.
Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.
Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.
Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.
What a generlization...
I suspect that almost all of us would behave uniformly when encountering face-to-face with another person’s misfortune—we would all feel instant sympathy. We are born with ‘sympathetic vibrations’--we often automatically tear-up in all the same situations. However there seems to be two moral concepts that determine many social-political situations.
“The two main concepts of ethics are those of the right and the good; the concept of a morally worthy person is, I believe, derived from them. This quote and any others are from “A Theory of Justice by John Rawls.
It appears that both philosophy and common sense distinguish between the concepts ‘right’ and ‘good’. The interrelationship of these two concepts in many minds will determine what is considered to be ethical/moral behavior. Most citizens in a just society consider that rights “are taken for granted and the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interests. The Constitution of the United States defines the rights of all citizens, which are considered to be sacrosanct (sacred or holy).
Many consider that the “most rational conception of justice is utilitarian¦a society is properly arranged when its institutions maximize the net balance of satisfaction¦It is natural to think that rationality is maximizing something and that in morals it must be maximizing the good.
Some advocates of utilitarianism believe that rights have a secondary validity from the fact that “under the conditions of civilized society there is a great social utility in following them [rights] for the most part and in permitting violations only under exceptional circumstances. The good, for society, is the satisfaction of rational desire. The right is that which maximizes the good; some advocates of utilitarianism account for rights as being a socially useful consideration.
Captain Dave will under no circumstance torture a prisoner. Captain Jim will torture a prisoner when he considers such action will save the lives of his platoon.
Some utilitarians consider the rights enunciated in the constitution are a useful means to fortify the good. Captain Jim, while recognizing the rights in the Constitution, considers these rights are valid and useful but only because they promote the good. The rights defined in the Constitution can be violated but only in the name of the common good.
Captain Dave may very well be an advocate of utilitarianism but he considers that right is different in kind from good and right cannot be forfeit to good under any condition.
Do you think that most people in your country are like Captain Jim (would torture under certain circumstances) or like Captain Dave (would not torture under any condition)? I think they are more like Jim in the US.
What a generlization...
HBIC
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
coberst:-6
An excellent topic.
It does give one pause for thought.
I tend to think that most folks would be like captain Jim but with a great deal of reticence. It seems to me the ultimate is the preservation of human life. It raises the question is it right or good to allow the death of one to save the many. What a horrible decision to have to make. It also seems to me that it would be somewhat easier if the choice was between the person's death who is making the decision and others rather then the death of one other for the saving of the many.
I've often thought about that and am glad so far not to have been in that situation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An excellent topic.
It does give one pause for thought.
I tend to think that most folks would be like captain Jim but with a great deal of reticence. It seems to me the ultimate is the preservation of human life. It raises the question is it right or good to allow the death of one to save the many. What a horrible decision to have to make. It also seems to me that it would be somewhat easier if the choice was between the person's death who is making the decision and others rather then the death of one other for the saving of the many.
I've often thought about that and am glad so far not to have been in that situation.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Ted
The Washington Post ran this article several days ago and it speaks to the subject we were discussing before, the condition of education in the US. In this case it speaks about the lower grades. It talks about the disappearance of reading in general in the lower grades.
Writing Off Reading
By Michael Skube
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page B03
We were talking informally in class not long ago, 17 college sophomores and I, and on a whim I asked who some of their favorite writers are. The question hung in uneasy silence. At length, a voice in the rear hesitantly volunteered the name of . . . Dan Brown.
No other names were offered.
The Washington Post ran this article several days ago and it speaks to the subject we were discussing before, the condition of education in the US. In this case it speaks about the lower grades. It talks about the disappearance of reading in general in the lower grades.
Writing Off Reading
By Michael Skube
Sunday, August 20, 2006; Page B03
We were talking informally in class not long ago, 17 college sophomores and I, and on a whim I asked who some of their favorite writers are. The question hung in uneasy silence. At length, a voice in the rear hesitantly volunteered the name of . . . Dan Brown.
No other names were offered.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
DesignerGal
You got somthin agin generalizations.
You got somthin agin generalizations.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
I'm with Cpt. Dave. My conscience forbids me to torture. If this results in the death of my platoon, so be it. My conscience is clear, that of the killers is not my responsibility.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
coberst:-6
I had some grade 8 classes that were totally unable to read anything above about the grade 3-4 level. They had no word attack skills whatsoever. A little research showed that they came up through the era, here in Canada anyway, of sight reading and little to no phonics. It was indeed sad.
I never, as an educator, bought into that theory and continued to teach phonics and insisted that as principal I wanted my teachers to do the same in spite of what the primary consultant said.
Research done through the Ontario Institute for Education showed in fact that I was on the correct path. Whatever happened to common sense?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I had some grade 8 classes that were totally unable to read anything above about the grade 3-4 level. They had no word attack skills whatsoever. A little research showed that they came up through the era, here in Canada anyway, of sight reading and little to no phonics. It was indeed sad.
I never, as an educator, bought into that theory and continued to teach phonics and insisted that as principal I wanted my teachers to do the same in spite of what the primary consultant said.
Research done through the Ontario Institute for Education showed in fact that I was on the correct path. Whatever happened to common sense?
Shalom
Ted:-6
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;493701 wrote: You'd allow one group of people to die because you didn't want to hurt an individual? Try that one in the real world and see how it feels.
Yes I would. I'm not the one killing them, I couldn't do that either. Thankfully I will never be in the position of Jim or Dave. Torture is wrong, whatever reason you use it for. Besides which, if you torture someone they will tell you they killed Kennedy if it will stop the pain.
Yes I would. I'm not the one killing them, I couldn't do that either. Thankfully I will never be in the position of Jim or Dave. Torture is wrong, whatever reason you use it for. Besides which, if you torture someone they will tell you they killed Kennedy if it will stop the pain.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;493772 wrote: But you'll be okay with letting them die because you don't want to torture someone? You'd let someone else pay the ultimate price for your principles? Is it right and good to do that?
How can I be sure that by torturing one man I save the lives of others?
If I could guarantee that would happen then I would, regretfully, do it. The real world is not like that. Nothing can be guaranteed. I would torture no body, that would bring me down to the level of those I was fighting against.
How can I be sure that by torturing one man I save the lives of others?
If I could guarantee that would happen then I would, regretfully, do it. The real world is not like that. Nothing can be guaranteed. I would torture no body, that would bring me down to the level of those I was fighting against.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;493946 wrote: But what's better? Not torturing someone and letting your troops die or torturing the person and ensuring your troops live? It's only torture after all, you're not going to kill the bloke.
In a hypothetical situation where If I tortured some body then no body would die, but if I didn't some people would die (which could not possibly happen in reality) I would not torture. Sorry folks, you are gonna die, and it's not the fault of the person who kills you, it's my fault because I can not torture any body.
In a hypothetical situation where If I tortured some body then no body would die, but if I didn't some people would die (which could not possibly happen in reality) I would not torture. Sorry folks, you are gonna die, and it's not the fault of the person who kills you, it's my fault because I can not torture any body.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;493964 wrote: So is it permissible to do something which is not right to make sure something worse doesn't happen?
Not for me, others can make their own decisions.
Not for me, others can make their own decisions.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
It is my belief that morality is relative to a certain extent. If torturing one saves the lives of many than so be it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
To torture is wrong. The sort of people we fight against condone torture, we don't.
Besides which, torturing some body does not necessarily save lives, and may cost more as people who weren't fighting now do as they see us as evil torturers.
Torture is wrong, full stop.
Besides which, torturing some body does not necessarily save lives, and may cost more as people who weren't fighting now do as they see us as evil torturers.
Torture is wrong, full stop.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Torture is wrong, if you start going down the road of justifying it for any reasons (and of course there are always reasons), then you really are on a slippery slope. Honest, its like innocent until proven guilty, that concept protects us all, I wouldn't have it any other way.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Torture is wrong and can NEVER be justified.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Can it be well-defined?
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
A good but too generalised topic for discussion. I have two questions -
Are philosophy and common sense different?
What about Captain Joe who would torture under any circumstances?
Are philosophy and common sense different?
What about Captain Joe who would torture under any circumstances?
-
Suresh Gupta
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
caesar777;495228 wrote: Torture is wrong and can NEVER be justified.
I also hold the same view.
I also hold the same view.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Well, First off, I believe the question is lacking in a few decisive aspects...
For one, I don't think you can make an assessment based on such an extreme graphic picture of hypothetical reality...I mean for Christs sake you're asking if the entire population of a given country can "torture" another human being if it meant saving the lives of more...Where is it asking why and/or how such torture would preserve the life of a given majority? If your talking about a platoon that is facing off in a war against that of another, which of the two sides is more ethically justifiable in fighting such a war, and upon such a question, if it is your side fighting in the war that is morally wrong, then I'm afraid you must start with step one before you jump to step two don't you think?...And given the realization that the "enemy" is fighting with no regard to ethical standards, then yes, I can see how one can presume another would commit to torturing another if it meant to save the lives of more, whom should be in the same case, just as morally sound as you are yourself to cast such judgement...If such a question should be asked, I think everything imaginable from a hypothetical standpoint should be exhausted in order to be able to come to such a precise accusation, not to mention the fact that even if torture were highly justifiable in the view of any given public administration morally correct, if the individual asked of such a task could actually go through with it. Which adds to my opinion that such a hypothetical opinion is subject to scrutiny, seeing as how in such a scenario, any given army would have specific agents, whom should have already proven their willingness to "torture".
I'm sorry but morality just isn't that simple, and it deserves more respect than that.
For one, I don't think you can make an assessment based on such an extreme graphic picture of hypothetical reality...I mean for Christs sake you're asking if the entire population of a given country can "torture" another human being if it meant saving the lives of more...Where is it asking why and/or how such torture would preserve the life of a given majority? If your talking about a platoon that is facing off in a war against that of another, which of the two sides is more ethically justifiable in fighting such a war, and upon such a question, if it is your side fighting in the war that is morally wrong, then I'm afraid you must start with step one before you jump to step two don't you think?...And given the realization that the "enemy" is fighting with no regard to ethical standards, then yes, I can see how one can presume another would commit to torturing another if it meant to save the lives of more, whom should be in the same case, just as morally sound as you are yourself to cast such judgement...If such a question should be asked, I think everything imaginable from a hypothetical standpoint should be exhausted in order to be able to come to such a precise accusation, not to mention the fact that even if torture were highly justifiable in the view of any given public administration morally correct, if the individual asked of such a task could actually go through with it. Which adds to my opinion that such a hypothetical opinion is subject to scrutiny, seeing as how in such a scenario, any given army would have specific agents, whom should have already proven their willingness to "torture".
I'm sorry but morality just isn't that simple, and it deserves more respect than that.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;495570 wrote: A cogent observation.
I dislike prefabricated thinking. "Torture is always wrong" is such a gross generalisation as to be rendered almost useless. But I say again, I don't think this thread is about "torture".
Enigmatically yours
D
Some things CAN be generalised.
Torture is always wrong,
Murder is always wrong,
Rape is always wrong.
You are free to disagree, but thankfully you don't make up the laws.
I dislike prefabricated thinking. "Torture is always wrong" is such a gross generalisation as to be rendered almost useless. But I say again, I don't think this thread is about "torture".
Enigmatically yours
D
Some things CAN be generalised.
Torture is always wrong,
Murder is always wrong,
Rape is always wrong.
You are free to disagree, but thankfully you don't make up the laws.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
caesar777;495674 wrote: Some things CAN be generalised.
Torture is always wrong,
Murder is always wrong,
Rape is always wrong.
You are free to disagree, but thankfully you don't make up the laws.
Okay I'll try again.
Can torture be well-defined?
Torture is always wrong,
Murder is always wrong,
Rape is always wrong.
You are free to disagree, but thankfully you don't make up the laws.
Okay I'll try again.
Can torture be well-defined?
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;495704 wrote: Too many absolutes, the world is full of non-absolutes. Context is everything.
Torture isn't always wrong.
Murder is a socio-legal concept and by definition is "wrong". There's a tautology in there and it would be better to talk of "killing humans."
Rape - same comments as for murder.
Of course I disagree, I never learned anything from mouthing agreement.
In my opinion, torture, ie. the deliberate inflicting of pain on another without their consent is always wrong.
In my opinion, killing another is always wrong.
In my opinion, rape, ie. sexual acts commited against the will of one party is always wrong.
Is that better?
I expect to be disagreed with, that is the freedom of will which all of us have, and my opinions are in the minority. I still will keep these opinions though, my conscience would forbid otherwise.
Torture isn't always wrong.
Murder is a socio-legal concept and by definition is "wrong". There's a tautology in there and it would be better to talk of "killing humans."
Rape - same comments as for murder.
Of course I disagree, I never learned anything from mouthing agreement.
In my opinion, torture, ie. the deliberate inflicting of pain on another without their consent is always wrong.
In my opinion, killing another is always wrong.
In my opinion, rape, ie. sexual acts commited against the will of one party is always wrong.
Is that better?
I expect to be disagreed with, that is the freedom of will which all of us have, and my opinions are in the minority. I still will keep these opinions though, my conscience would forbid otherwise.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
caesar777;495765 wrote: In my opinion, torture, ie. the deliberate inflicting of pain on another without their consent is always wrong.
Only pain? Not simple discomfort? I ask because some believe sense deprivation to be torture. Water boarding, holding a person under water until just before drowning, isn't painful but it's scary as hell.
Only pain? Not simple discomfort? I ask because some believe sense deprivation to be torture. Water boarding, holding a person under water until just before drowning, isn't painful but it's scary as hell.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Accountable;495769 wrote: Only pain? Not simple discomfort? I ask because some believe sense deprivation to be torture. Water boarding, holding a person under water until just before drowning, isn't painful but it's scary as hell.
Yes, I would include that as torture. Thank you for reminding me.
Yes, I would include that as torture. Thank you for reminding me.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
caesar777;495775 wrote: Yes, I would include that as torture. Thank you for reminding me.
All right, so now we're inclluding pain, discomfort, and fear. That's a tremendously huge gray, or grey, area. Do you really think it's possible to clearly define where one crosses the line from interrogation to torture?
All right, so now we're inclluding pain, discomfort, and fear. That's a tremendously huge gray, or grey, area. Do you really think it's possible to clearly define where one crosses the line from interrogation to torture?
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Accountable;495781 wrote: All right, so now we're inclluding pain, discomfort, and fear. That's a tremendously huge gray, or grey, area. Do you really think it's possible to clearly define where one crosses the line from interrogation to torture?
It's hard. Fear for your life is torture, fear for your freedom is not.
Pain is torture, as is discomfort which becomes painful and sleep deprivation.
It's hard. Fear for your life is torture, fear for your freedom is not.
Pain is torture, as is discomfort which becomes painful and sleep deprivation.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
caesar777;495793 wrote: It's hard. Fear for your life is torture, fear for your freedom is not.
Pain is torture, as is discomfort which becomes painful and sleep deprivation.
Sleep deprivation is torture?!? Most college professors and teaching hospitals deserve prison then.
Paper cuts are painful but no one would seriously call it torture.
Do you see how difficult nailing down a definition is?
Pain is torture, as is discomfort which becomes painful and sleep deprivation.
Sleep deprivation is torture?!? Most college professors and teaching hospitals deserve prison then.
Paper cuts are painful but no one would seriously call it torture.
Do you see how difficult nailing down a definition is?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;495821 wrote: Whew, dodged the bullet on that one..........I'm only a part-timer in our equivalent of community college, does that mean I get a suspended sentence?
Dunno. How much homework do you assign? :sneaky:
Dunno. How much homework do you assign? :sneaky:
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
It would seem to me that one is allowed to take another's life in self defense or in defense of another whose life is threatened. I don't believe for one moment that God would have us not defend ourselves.
As far as torture goes it seems to me that if the torture of one might possibly preven the death of many others than it is justified.
In many ways morality is relative to the society and its particular culture. In our society sexual activity between young folks is frowned upon but on some of the south Pacific islands it is encouraged. That is just one example.
Shalom
Ted:-6
As far as torture goes it seems to me that if the torture of one might possibly preven the death of many others than it is justified.
In many ways morality is relative to the society and its particular culture. In our society sexual activity between young folks is frowned upon but on some of the south Pacific islands it is encouraged. That is just one example.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Fine. You have given your hypothetical scenario, now let me give mine...
Col. Sanders has been assigned in seeking out and obtaining custody of a group of unknown resistance fighters whom have been going around and torturing innocent women and children out of sheer spite in an attempt to do nothing more than to instill fear into the general public.
Col. Sanders then happens to obtain one of the known subjects of interest whom has the knowledge of everyone within the group in question. The obtained resistance fighter will not divulge the much needed information to apprehend the ungodly group of terror. Is it then ok to torture that subject to then secure the pivotal information needed to put an end to such wickedness?
Meanwhile, Col. Schmuck is sitting in his cozy office preaching about "torture can never be justified, therefore it is our obligation to sacrifice the lives and feelings of the innocent so rudely being trespassed upon". When does the right to chose life over death end, and if it doesn't are you willing to live in such a world?
Col. Sanders has been assigned in seeking out and obtaining custody of a group of unknown resistance fighters whom have been going around and torturing innocent women and children out of sheer spite in an attempt to do nothing more than to instill fear into the general public.
Col. Sanders then happens to obtain one of the known subjects of interest whom has the knowledge of everyone within the group in question. The obtained resistance fighter will not divulge the much needed information to apprehend the ungodly group of terror. Is it then ok to torture that subject to then secure the pivotal information needed to put an end to such wickedness?
Meanwhile, Col. Schmuck is sitting in his cozy office preaching about "torture can never be justified, therefore it is our obligation to sacrifice the lives and feelings of the innocent so rudely being trespassed upon". When does the right to chose life over death end, and if it doesn't are you willing to live in such a world?
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
K.Snyder:-6
There is no easy answer but I would say a little or a lot of pain may generate the information that is needed to save innocent lives. That may sound cruel to some but the torture of innocent men women and children is an abomination and needs to be stopped even if it means torture.
I also am aware that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist but when it involves innocent folks it is time to take a stand and deal with it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
There is no easy answer but I would say a little or a lot of pain may generate the information that is needed to save innocent lives. That may sound cruel to some but the torture of innocent men women and children is an abomination and needs to be stopped even if it means torture.
I also am aware that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist but when it involves innocent folks it is time to take a stand and deal with it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Ted;496184 wrote: K.Snyder:-6
There is no easy answer but I would say a little or a lot of pain may generate the information that is needed to save innocent lives. That may sound cruel to some but the torture of innocent men women and children is an abomination and needs to be stopped even if it means torture.
I also am aware that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist but when it involves innocent folks it is time to take a stand and deal with it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Absolutely.
So then I am in agreement that you are saying torture can be justified then.
As much as I respect life and all human beings I have to agree...I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for your actions, and you better da#n well be able to take the medicine you dish out...and that doesn't necessarily mean that one has to torture in order to justify that person being tortured...they just have to be in the wrong.
I have no sympathy for evil men.
There is no easy answer but I would say a little or a lot of pain may generate the information that is needed to save innocent lives. That may sound cruel to some but the torture of innocent men women and children is an abomination and needs to be stopped even if it means torture.
I also am aware that one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist but when it involves innocent folks it is time to take a stand and deal with it.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Absolutely.
So then I am in agreement that you are saying torture can be justified then.
As much as I respect life and all human beings I have to agree...I am a firm believer in taking responsibility for your actions, and you better da#n well be able to take the medicine you dish out...and that doesn't necessarily mean that one has to torture in order to justify that person being tortured...they just have to be in the wrong.
I have no sympathy for evil men.
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Diuretic;496275 wrote: Should we torture simply as punishment?
Absolutely not...That would be rather uncivilized to say the least...at least that's my view of it...
Although if someone were to have rats nipping at their face sitting in a bamboo cage with only 1 feet of room allowing you to breathe, I seriously doubt they would ever think about doing the crime they had committed prior to being incarcerated. :wah:
Absolutely not...That would be rather uncivilized to say the least...at least that's my view of it...
Although if someone were to have rats nipping at their face sitting in a bamboo cage with only 1 feet of room allowing you to breathe, I seriously doubt they would ever think about doing the crime they had committed prior to being incarcerated. :wah:
It's good! But, maybe it ain't right?
Accountable;495807 wrote: Sleep deprivation is torture?!? Most college professors and teaching hospitals deserve prison then.
Paper cuts are painful but no one would seriously call it torture.
Do you see how difficult nailing down a definition is?
I do, but I think common sense shows where to draw the line.
Deliberate paper cuts are wrong, but I cannot see any torturer using them in his arsenal, not painful enough.
To deprive some one of sleep is torture. Junior doctors choose to do without sleep, they are not forced. The work time directive guards us from that.
Paper cuts are painful but no one would seriously call it torture.
Do you see how difficult nailing down a definition is?
I do, but I think common sense shows where to draw the line.
Deliberate paper cuts are wrong, but I cannot see any torturer using them in his arsenal, not painful enough.
To deprive some one of sleep is torture. Junior doctors choose to do without sleep, they are not forced. The work time directive guards us from that.